|
Norfolknet Politics, Opinions, and Rants of a Relevant Nature as Deemed by the Webmaster [Previous, Election 2008], [one before]
We should also know there are potential advantages to having a "townie" in
Boston representing us.
However, folks in other 9th District towns might not be as familiar with Dan
and his unique qualifications.
These towns include: Plainville, Wrentham, Walpole; (Pct. 5), Millis (Pct.
1), and Medfield (Pct 3, 4).
If you know anyone in these towns please give them a call and let them know
that Dan Winslow is running for State Representative and tell them about his
qualifications.
Why vote for Dan Winslow?
1. Establish healthy competition on Beacon Hill and get them working for
your vote.
2. Dan is a fiscally sound thinker always seeking new ways to keep our
money where it belongs, in our pockets.
3. Dan is the former Presiding Judge of the Wrentham District Court; he
knows what local problems look like.
Please spread the word about Dan so we can get someone in Boston who is on
our side!
www.danwinslow.com
[Proposal for Mortage Relief PDF]
This is so important to all of us. It is now in the senate, and the
banking lobbyists are trying to prevent it from happening. Senator Dodd
is now thinking to withdraw this from legislation.
Here is a link to Bloomberg.com
[article]
You can call Senator Kerry's office or our new Senator Brown and ask
them to support this bill.
H.R. 3126: Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009
This is really not about party rhetoric, this is about us, the people.
We need to pay attention to this.
You also neglect the
inescapable reality that this Administration's initial moves can be
looked upon as directly saving our financial system from collapse
(including the stabilization of 19 financial institutions), or fail to
acknowledge his rescue of the US auto industry, or his ending of
uncivilized torture techniques and compliance with the Geneva Convention
standards, or the renewed confidence in our nation worldwide, or the
gradual climb of the stock market, or the beginning of the long overdue
withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
I will spare our beloved webmaster
(who has been pretty busy keeping this site up-to-date due to the Senate
race) and keep my response as brief as possible. However, for a far more
complete list of Obama achievements, see the following compilation put
together by Robert P. Watson, a Professor and the Coordinator of
American Studies at Lynn University. Go to:
[page link]
@ DR - I agree that perhaps he was uncertain as to what he was being handed. I
said throughout the entire Presidential campaign, "not a job I would want to
be taking over". I think he's a great campaigner, but that is all. As for
healthcare, the Republicans are trying to sabotage it because of many
reasons: 1. They aren't being included in the debate when it comes to reform
2. They don't like the closed-door, back room meetings where they are buying
the votes of their constituents. 3. Giving deals to the labor unions, which
in turn will now put the additional burden of 60 billion dollars on the
American people and small/private business. The only transparency in this
administration is we can all clearly see the corruption. It shows that if
you support the Democratic machine, you will be rewarded. What does that say
about those that didn't need or get a bailout, what about the business owner
that is just trying to get by? What about us "working stiffs" taking on
another job just to make ends meet. He has Reid and Pelosi handling the
healthcare reform, and they are unpopular amongst Republicans and
Democrats-another one of his downfalls. You cannot have a one-party rule and
expect that all American's are going to go along with it. He is moving in a
direction that makes the American people nervous. While you say that we
don't want to be ripped off by big for profit insurance agencies, we don't
want to be ripped off by big government either. The majority of Americans
wish to see healthcare reform; however, not like this. President Obama is not
letting the Republicans be heard, he's not willing to negotiate with the
GOP, as he stated he would. As for making the wealthy pay their fair share,
they do that already, and under the Bush tax cuts, they actually paid more,
but also boosted the economy and stock market (see here:
[article]
) The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all
taxes. It's the wealthy that will create jobs, it's the wealthy that pay the
most in taxes. 43% of American's do not pay any taxes. There are
approximately 60 million people that do not pay any taxes, but collect a
check from the gov't. So any argument that comes to me about it being "fair"
is just ridiculous". How is fair that those that don't work, or pay taxes,
are entitled to our money?
It has been very disappointing to watch every single Republican
senator disregard the interests of the people that they are supposed
to represent and do their best to sabotage health care reform (to try
to make it Obama's Waterloo) rather than to provide the health care
that their constituents want. It is painful for me to have to admit
that the "Blue Dog Democrats" aren't much better, since they, in
effect, held the bill hostage trying to get special advantages. (If a
few Republicans had helped, the Blue Dog Democrats wouldn't have
gotten away with their tactics.)
The majority of Americans don't want to be ripped off by big for-profit
insurance companies, they don't want the insecurity of knowing
that if they lose their jobs they've also lost their health care, they
don't want an environment where, after paying premiums for years and
years, they can have their coverage dropped if they get seriously ill,
they don't want to be prevented from getting health insurance because
of some pre-existing condition, and they understand that if the cost
of health care continues to rise much faster than inflation (which is
already rising faster than salaries) they simply won't be able to
afford health care.
You are correct that groups who had given up on voting in the past
turned out in greater numbers in the 2008 presidential election - not
because they expected a free ride, but because they expected a fair
shake. Rather than having a president who gave tax breaks to the
wealthiest Americans and left the middle class footing the bill, Obama
said that he would make wealthy Americans pay their fair share so that
middle class Americans didn't have the full burden fall on their
shoulders (and their children's shoulders and their grandchildren's
shoulders and their great grandchildren's shoulders).
This turnout was despite some minority voters being told to vote on
Wednesday rather than Tuesday, having to wait on multi-hour lines
while voters in "Republican neighborhoods" had only a few minutes
wait, being intimidated by the police on their way to vote, or being
removed from the voter registration database because they had names
that were "close to" the names of felons.
As I said in my post of 1/7 5:47pm, Republicans have a valid point
that we have to have procedures in place which limit voting to people
who should have a right to vote. However, we have to make it as easy
as possible for all citizens to vote and to be sure that the
procedures which limit voting to people who should have a right to
vote don't become obstacles for citizens who should have a right to
vote. As I mentioned in my post, some of these procedures are
obstacles for citizens who should have a right to vote and they were
probably designed with the intention of being obstacles for
demographic groups that are likely to vote Democratic in higher
proportions (poorer people, minorities, etc.).
If I understand your last point correctly, it was that "areas with the
demographic groups I was talking about went heavily for Obama, so they
must not have encountered obstacles to voting". (I don't think that
"the Majority of America (per square mile)" comment was really part of
the point you wanted to make.) I think that the voters' enthusiasm
about the possibility of electing a president who wasn't going to
screw them probably inspired many to persist despite the long lines,
misleading information, intimidation, and other tactics. My fear is
that since the Republicans saw that they lost despite the obstacles
they erected, they will try to create even more obstacles before the
next election.
As for you comment "By some strange coincidence, demographic groups that are
likely to vote Democratic in higher proportions (poorer people, minorities,
etc.) seem to be the ones for whom there are obstacles to voting." It was
those groups that turned out in record numbers to vote. Not because he would
better America... but because they thought they would be getting the "free
ride" they have been looking for all along. Let us not forget this:
[youtube link].
Or the voter intimidation in
Philly by the Black Panthers as seen here:
[youtube 2].
So to say that it's a strange
coincidence that demographic groups that are likely to vote Democratic in
higher proportions is just not true. Look at this map
[Washington Post link]
you will notice that the Majority of America (per square
mile) voted McCain. If you look at the small pockets that went Obama (in the
red states) it is the major metropolises; which falls under your description
of "demographic groups that are likely to vote Democratic in high
proportions (poorer people, minorities, etc).
See the clip from The DailyShow with Jon Stewart at
[page link]
about the idea that when you lose an election and the party who won
doesn't do exactly what you would have done, you have to accept that
as the way a democracy works.
The Republicans say they are concerned about people who shouldn't be
able to vote "sneaking in" and voting. The Democrats say they are
concerned about people who be should be able to vote being prevented
from voting. Both Republicans and Democrats have valid points. There
has been almost no evidence of people who shouldn't be able to vote,
voting. (I'm not saying it never happens or couldn't happen, but cases
are very, very rare.) There is a lot of evidence of people who are
citizens and should have a right to vote being prevented from voting
in various ways - making it difficult or expensive for them to
register, preventing them from getting to the polling places, not
having enough polling stations, etc. By some strange coincidence,
demographic groups that are likely to vote Democratic in higher
proportions (poorer people, minorities, etc.) seem to be the ones for
whom there are obstacles to voting. In view of the abuses that the
country has experienced, it is important that all citizens who should
have a right to vote can easily register and are not impeded,
threatened, misled, or harassed while trying to exercise their rights.
Experience has shown that Republican have used the issue of making
sure that only people who should have the right to vote get
registered, as a way to prevent people who should have the right to
vote, but are likely to vote Democratic, from registering.
Don't forget to vote on January 19th.
I will say this, though: Major overhaul
(preferably a single-payer system) should have been instituted in this
nation over 60 years ago, and it remains a national disgrace and outrage
that a handful of insurance megamonopolies and their present and former
hired guns (like McCaughey) continue to this day to employ scare
tactics, distortion, and misinformation (for example, pointless claims
and laughable predictions that a public option is "socialized medicine"
and will put the private sector out of business, or it will banish us
all to "group visits with the doctor," doom granny to a death panel, and
increase our risk of cancer). In addition, they spend millions upon
millions of dollars in an ongoing effort to maintain a life-threatening,
consumer unfriendly, and utterly baffling mess of a healthcare system
that not only leaves out some 50 million of us (a number that increases
daily) and threatens future economic collapse, but also has directly
resulted in our healthcare being ranked 37th worldwide by the World
Health Organization. Why would anyone in their right mind want to defend
this?!!
Frankly, it is almost understandable why many of our
politicians, like Boehner and Lieberman, are in bed with these
self-perpetuating corporate behemoths; but, what is really depressing
and incomprehensible are those private citizens who continue to fight
against their own best interests by supporting such a punishing,
private-sector death grip on their own health, the health of their
families, the health of their fellow-citizens, and, ultimately, the
health of their nation.
Project Vote Smart
[votesmart.org]
describes itself as
"The Voter's Self-Defense System". It is a non-partisan site with
information about officials' voting records and positions. It doesn't
seem to include information on campaign donations. It has some
information about state officials, but it is focused more on the
federal government. In particular, note the "Political Courage
Test" (= Issue Positions) which they describe as "The Political
Courage Test is a key component of Project Vote Smart's Voter Self-
Defense system. Major leaders of the media, major parties and Project
Vote Smart repetitiously ask candidates one central question: ``Are you
willing to tell citizens your positions on the issues you will most
likely face on their behalf?'' The Political Courage Test is
administered to all candidates for presidential, congressional,
gubernatorial, and state legislative offices. ... At a time when
Americans are increasingly frustrated with the attack advertising and
empty rhetoric of many campaigns, the need for this relevant
information has never been greater. The public integrity of candidates
and the quality of their campaigns can be viewed, in part, as a
measurement of their willingness to provide their prospective
employers (voters) with this information during a campaign, the point
when voters need the most help and when the candidates are asking for
their vote."
The past couple weeks, as the national health care debate has raged on, people have been coming to Change-Congress.org in droves to join our fight for fundamental campaign finance reform.
I've tried to look up a few U.S. senators on the FEC website, but that
site is usually busy and non-responsive.
Does anyone know what that private website address pertaining to the FEC
is?
The Secretary of State in Massachusetts has a webpage about elections:
[ma.us page link]
There may be a list of how much various local and state politicians
received, and from whom, but I didn't see it. Is there such a website
for Massachusetts?
Thanks,
You asked "Why is the Obama administration actually blogging about him
(Glenn Beck) on the White House blog?" You've probably heard of the
"Big Lie" - the idea that if a lie is repeated often enough, people
will start to believe it. Fox provides people like Beck with a big
soapbox. If the only thing people heard was what he said, they might
start to believe him. I suspect that the White House wants to be sure
that people have an opportunity to hear the truth and weigh that
against what Beck says.
Two non-partisan fact checking sites are
factcheck.org
and
the Pulitzer Prize winning
politifact.com
An example of a non-issue to which I was referring is the suggestion
that Healthcare reform will include "Death Panels". The statement "A
provision in the health care reform bill for end-of-life counseling
for seniors is not 'entirely voluntary'." was rated as "False" by
politifact. The more outrageous statement that "Seniors and the
disabled will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his
bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level
of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."
was given the "Pants On Fire" rating with the description "Sci-fi
scenario not based in reality".
Obama said "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will
insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm
proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." That
prompted Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina to shout "You lie!".
According to factcheck.org
The president is correct: The House bill contains a section (Sec. 246)
titled "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS," which states:
"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for
affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully
present in the United States."
I encourage you to continue taking an active role in what is happening
in this country - to be skeptical of all politicians on both sides of
the aisle and to check what they said they would do against what they
actually did. You wrote "I will call me representatives in congress
and the senate, state and federal and let them know how I feel. I will
continue to watch what they do govern my self accordingly." I applaud
that sentiment (if not the grammar ;) ). I think this town, and the
country in general, would benefit from citizens expressing their
opinions in a civil and rational manner, and respectfully listening to
other people's opinions with an open mind.
Quite apart from the effect on our ability as a country to hold civil
discussions with each other, this is also having a deleterious effect
on the Republican party. See the op-ed piece by David Brooks (one of
the New York Times' conservative, but civil, opinion writers) titled
"The Wizard of Beck" at
[article link]
To DR: When America is destroyed, it won't be by Fox News, believe me.
Are they scared people are actually listening and
checking to see if what he says is true? I'm not sure what non-issues
you are talking about. If you mean the ACORN non-issue. Well that seems
like a pretty strong issue to me. They get tax payer dollars to advice
how to set up a prostitution ring and import under age girls into the
country and not pay taxes, beside voter registration fraud. Yea, that's
a non-issue. Or how about Van Jones, who signed the truther petition.
Yeah another non-issue. Or how Obama is dragging his feet while soldiers
are dying in Afghanistan. After he said in March, that he will do
whatever is needed to win there. Another non-issue. Or maybe the Health
care debate where a congressman called the President a liar to the
amazement of everyone. As it turns out the President was not completely
truthful. Another non-issue. Or perhaps Cap & Tax, where energy rates
will skyrocket all in the name of global warming, yeah right.
We being taken as fools by special interest, unions, the UN and many
other charlatans.
As for Mr. Friedman in the NY Times, he may be correct or may be a
moron. I think the latter. I am not a big fan of certain conservative
pundits. But I know BS when I see it. And the Obama administration is
full of it. As many have said before, he is a great charmer, can read a
teleprompter like nobody else can, but he is very inexperienced and
naive. He is trying to spend our way out of this recession. He is
going to bankrupt us.
As for destroying America, Michael Moore, Hollyweird and NBC/GE is doing
just fine taking care of that. FOX happens to be engaging people to
take part in their country's management for the first time in over 100
years. The other network are basically telling everyone to shut up and
do what you're told. Well, I will not let these career politicians ruin
this country. I will call me representatives in congress and the
senate, state and federal and let them know how I feel. I will continue
to watch what they do govern my self accordingly.
To MJD, Glad you had fun
P.S. All hail MON
So if your having a Tea Party please let me know I have a few friends
that would be interested in showing up with signs.
They have no trouble from Obama down spending so much money that taking
23K for a person night out with wife on our dime doesn't seem to bother
the liberals in this state - no, correction - in this country. I would like
to know what kind of attention would the mainstream media would have
given if it was GWB who disrupted NYC just for a night out with his
wife.
Anyone going to say that DC doesn't have live entertainment suitable for
the first family?
Please call or email Mr. Frank and Speaker Pelosi and let them know it
is not OK to release these pictures. The individuals that were
responsible for these actions have been prosecuted and punished. Enough
is enough.
I called to today and got a very rude aide that said Mr. Frank didn't
care what I thought.
Barney FrankWashington office- 202-225-5931 Boston office - 617-332-3920 Email - [link]
Speaker Nancy Pelosi[speaker.house.gov] or [www.speaker.gov]
If the web contact form doesn't work, use this email address:
AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
Office of the SpeakerH-232, US Capitol Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-0100
Please call today
Wow, $24000.00 for a date. Hope luck was on his side.
But instead of collecting Shiny OBJECTS I collected the HEADS of LOCAL
Socialists, Communists, And DemiGods Who believe They Know Wha's Best....
And I kept them in My high nest... My Treasures!
NOT YOURS! Mine!
The The Population O' Norfolk Suddenly Dropped by 2 maybe more!
And The Other Crows Resounded! CAW! CAW!
[Socialist as in those who suggest the taxpayers subsidize commercial landowners in town, or socialist as in those who think public money should be spent for the public good? Us politically unaware bumpkins need things explained. - Wm.]
IF ANY STATE could be called a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, it would be Massachusetts. Its statewide elected officials [wiki] are all Democrats, as is every member of its congressional delegation [MA congress]. The Legislature is the most lopsidedly Democratic [page link] in the union -- there are only five Republicans among the 40 senators, and just 16 in the 160-member House of Representatives -- and it has been more than half a century since the GOP controlled either branch. Political analyst Jon Keller writes in The Bluest State [ref], his uninhibited survey of contemporary Bay State politics, "Massachusetts over the past few decades has been a Democrats' Burger King: They always have it their way."
The Disney channel is already doing it.
[article]
Political Correctness is destroying America.
The United States is in a severe recession, and the stock market Dow is
below 7000, unemployment is rising, house foreclosures are increasing,
college costs are preventing many youngsters from going ot college, and
cities and towns are laying off Police, Fire, and municipal personnel.
This is not the time to be giving away millions of our dollars to any
foreigh country or organization, especially after the State Department
built a huge embassy in Iraq, complete with swimming pool. Of course,
the embassy buildings are not designed to withstand mortar attacks, and
may not last long.
Tell our senstors and reps to keep the money here in the United States
for a change.
1) Management changes. How can the same CEOs,
CFOs and Chairmen be expected to act fiscally responsible when they so
grossly mismanaged their companies in the first place? If the banks accept
public money, than they are vetted to the SAME rules and oversights as any
government institution.
2) Explicit regulations regarding how the money
will be used both in the housing and credit sector. Publish the regulations
in language the public can understand. Close the loopholes.
3) Accountability. Those found to be complicit
in the unethical use of public money will be held responsible, both
financially and criminally in a court of law.
Please, take a few minutes to call or email your representatives. I have
and have heard back from two out of five so far. Fortunately, our
congressman, Barney Frank, is the Chairman of the Financial Services
Committee; he has a major influence on how/where bailout money is spent.
Collectively, we CAN have control over our tax money. Go to: www.usa.gov to
find your elected officials.
Norfolknet.com your community, on-line |
